I have watched the EZ Forum discussion on the depth of cut and angle depth of cut for a few years now. I do try to track to some degree the number of times depth of cut mattered. I am not a contractor so I do not come across everything imaginable. As a serious amateur for the last 16 years, I have built cabinets, furniture, gifts and a small number of oddball projects. Still, as a woodworker, I have yet to deal with depth of cut that the EZ products will not handle. I am sure with my limited exposure there are some things I miss that professionals will deal with. I would think though that since my first EZ purchase (in 2004 or 2006?), I would have hit at least one or two projects that my EZ tools would not meet the task at hand -- still I have not had one! Next week maybe? I would be interested to know some hard data, that tracks the number of times depth of cut is a big issue. I do have a Bosch 10" Double Bevel Slider saw. So many of my 2X stock is handled on that saw.

All of the above stated my be of limited use due to my narrow scope experience. Still it gives me the question of -- "how many beyond depth of cut tasks are woodworkers required to perform in a year?" If less than 5% of a woodworkers tasks are beyond the depth of cut capacity of the saw, then justification for a larger saw is limited. If 25% are out of capacity then the justifications are greater. I would love to hear more comments positive or negative on the need for greater depth of cut. It seems to me that most of us use the EZ for 2X lumber (1 1/2") or sheet goods 3/4" or thinner.

Can we have some input? This is a frequent question that new members are asking and putting the situation into perspective is certainly relevant.

As to depth of cut the dividing line for a larger saw seems to be between 2x and 8/4 stock. If you plan to use the 8/4 stock, you need the larger saw. I have the 10 1/4 Makita but it is seldom used. I most frequently use a Hilti that has 1 3/4" depth of cut.

Took me a little while as I took time out to read the two articles again. The newer article has, I believe. a mistake in the method shown. It shows glue being added to the bottom edges of the core strips and the core lowered onto the skin - I don't see how this is practical. I added a couple pages from the original 1987 article (actually just the one to keep within the 5 attachment limit) which shows the glue being applied to the top of the core strips, the skin being lowered on top and then clamped (or mechanically fastened) to the core. After the glue has dried, the sub-assembly is turned over and the second skin attached in the same manner - which makes a whole lot more sense. I guess the person who re-wrote the original article didn't fully understand the process.

The top build described in another forum used Baltic Birch plywood for the core strips and cabinet grade plywood for the skins. Maple was used for skirting around the top, with the wood projecting enough above the top skin to provide a "pocket" for a sheet of tempered hardboard which is used as a replaceable work surface. The builder used 3" wide strips of 3/4 BB plywood for the strips and 3/4" plywood for the upper and lower skins. Add in the maple skirting, any internal blocking (for vise attachment and leg mounting, etc.) and you have a pretty substantial (heavy) worktop.

Well, that didn't work either, guess the files are too large because of the diagrams so here's the material as single pages.

about buying capability is to buy more than your current needs because sooner or later you will grow into more capability. Having only minimum capability causes you to hold back and not venture into new uses. This has proven valid for me in everything from fly fishing to shooting to bicycles to wood working. The difference in cost between the 5007 and 5008 will disappear unless you buy the 5007 and then need to buy a 5008 for some future project. With the 5008 you can take advantage of the cheaper 7 1/4 blades if you want but will have the ability to go bigger with just a blade change.